No abstract

Exploring the elements that affect farmers’ willingness to protect cultivated land is the key to improving the ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land protection. The purpose of this study was to analyze regional differences in ecological compensation for cultivated land protection, and to explore the influence of different external environments on farmers’ willingness to engage in cultivated land protection. Based on the Profitable Spatial Boundary Analysis theory (PSBA), GIS spatial analysis technology was used to analyze regional space differences and assess ecological compensation for urban and rural cultivated land protection at the micro scale. The results show that the willingness of farmers to participate in cultivated land protection is affected by the external environment and the ecological compensation offered. The trend of the comprehensive benefit of cultivated land protection ecological compensation (B) is “Λ” from the first layer to the third layer. The B value of the urban–rural junction area is the highest value. This shows that the external environment is favorable for ecological compensation in this area, which has a positive effect on farmers’ willingness to protect cultivated land. B < 0 in the first and third layer, which has a depressant effect on farmers’ willingness to protect cultivated land. The study results contribute to the understanding of the impact of regional differences in the external environmental on ecological compensation and farmers’ willingness to engage in cultivated land protection.

While water–energy–food (WEF) nexus is a major livelihood sources for local community, its security issues grow continually and there is limited information on how nexus resource management is effective at delivering livelihoods and food security. These difficulties are related to the lack of local community knowledge of the use and exploitation of water, energy, and food resources; this limited awareness leads to trade‐offs, especially in local and marginalized areas. On the basis of data collected from a local community through a survey‐based approach, this study examines local community perception of nexus resources and their contribution to livelihoods. The results indicate that community perceptions of nexus resources can be understood through social, natural, economic, human, physical, and environmental livelihood indicators. According to our findings, the perception of nexus resources is based on the benefits of individual resources rather than their interlinkages. This could be the result of community perceptions of a particular nexus resource from three nexus sector, that is, food. Food is the center of nexus resources for the community in the study area. This indicates, that there is a missing link between cross‐sectorial resource utilization and management, and full‐scale adoption of the WEF nexus to enhance living conditions. Our findings suggest that there is a low understanding of WEF nexus resource use and management, and the livelihood benefit of individual nexus resources is the primary focus in the studied community. From these results, we recommend more action to be taken by the government and other stakeholders to improve the local community perception of nexus resources for their livelihoods.

No abstract

In Ethiopia, land, water, energy and food (LWEF) nexus resources are under pressure due to population growth, urbanization and unplanned consumption. The effect of this pressure has been a widely discussed topic in nexus resource literature. The evidence shows the predominantly negative impact of this; however, the impact of these factors is less explored from a local scale. As a result, securing nexus resources is becoming a serious challenge for the country. This necessitates the identification of the driving factors for the sustainable utilization of scarce LWEF nexus resources. Our study provides a systemic look at the driving factor indicators that induce nexus resource degradation. We use the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to develop the indicators’ weights, and use a Path Analysis Model (PAM) to quantitatively estimate the effect of the driving factor indicators on the LWEF nexus resources. The results indicate that social (48%), economic (19%), and policy and institutional changes (14%) are the major nexus resource driving factor indicators. The path analysis results indicate that among the social driving factor indicators, population growth and consumption patterns have a significant direct effect on the LWEF nexus, with path coefficients of 0.15 and 0.089, respectively. Similarly, the potential of LWEF nexus resources is also influenced by the institutional and policy change drivers, such as outdated legislation and poor institutional structure, with path coefficients of 0.46 and 0.39, respectively. This implies that population growth and consumption patterns are the leading social drivers, while outdated legislation and poor institutional structures are the institutional and policies change drivers which have a potential impact on LWEF nexus resource degradation. Similarly, other driving factors such as environmental, economic and technological factors also affect nexus resources to varying degrees. The findings of our study show the benefits of managing the identified driving factors for the protection of LWEF nexus resources, which have close links with human health and the environment. In order to alleviate the adverse effects of driving factors, all stakeholders need to show permanent individual and collective commitment. Furthermore, we underline the necessity of applying LWEF nexus approaches to the management of these drivers, and to optimize the environmental and social outcomes.

No abstract

The sustainable management of Land-Water-Energy-Food (LWEF) nexus requires an environmental characterization that allows the comparison of complex interlinkages between nexus resources and livelihoods. This complexity makes this characterization difficult coupled with limited study in quantifying sustainability of LWEF nexus and its linkage with livelihood. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the link between sustainable LWEF nexus and livelihoods. In order to address the objective the proposed methodology starts with a detailed identification of LWEF and livelihood indicators which depicts well-defined, shared, and holistic methods to evaluate sustainability. With this we used analytical hierarchy process and pair wise comparison matrix in combination with weighting model. The result of composite LWEF nexus index was 0.083 representing, low sustainability. Besides, this composite index implies the use and management of LWEF nexus resources in the study area is very low, as the composite index approach to 1, the use and management of nexus resources are in a good condition which characterized by sustainability. This could be linked with nexus resources consumption, use, and management. From the analysis of the weight of land, water, energy and food nexus resources, the highest weight was observed for food. The focus of on food production only shows no clear synergy on provisioning, supporting or regulating nexus resources to address livelihoods. The result further showed that LWEF nexus resources have strong correlation with livelihoods. This was evidenced by social (r > 0.8, p < 0.01), natural (r > 0.3, p < 0.05) and physical (r > 0.6, p < 0.01) livelihood indicators showed strong positive correlation with LWEF nexus resources. Based on the finding of the study, it was observed that managing nexus resources not only provide a significant contribution to achieve sustainable LWEF nexus, but also be effective for enhancing livelihood through food security. This could be attained by strong evidence based policy to ensure sustainable use of nexus resources. The results provided by this study would serve as the foundation for future study, policy formulation and implementation.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.